The Samyang 2.8 14 mm is known for very good sharpness across the frame combined with an ugly distortion characteristic, which should not play that much of a role in landscape work.
How is color rendition etc?
You are invited to showcase great landscapes with that affordable lens to convince me that it is the right one for me. Full frame examples are clearly preferred, mentioning of aperture settings would also be nice.
Looking forward to inspiration.

Based upon the other interest shown in the Samyang 14 thread, I thought those interested in this economy ultra wide angle lens would like to see how it compares to the legendary Zeiss 21. The objective was two fold:
Firstly the issue was to see if PT Lens visually diminished the sharpness of the Samyang (Rokinon branded) 14 f2.8 image captured on a 5DII. This distortion correction software for the Rokinon is not embeded into the Breezebrowser RAW conversion, as it is for the Zeiss. Rather it is a tool added as a Photoshop filter in post. The same test was performed with the Zeiss Distagon 21 f2.8, but PT Lens action was done as part of the RAW conversion. By switching back and forth one can readily see the changes in barrel (mustache) distortion correction being applied by PT Lens. While the Zeiss is being used as a control for the Rokinon application of PT Lens, one can contrast the overall sharpness and FOV of the Rokinon Vs the benchmark of wide angle lenses, the Zeiss 21.
These are presented in a larger size than I normally post so that one can see both the full frame effects of distortion inherent in these lenses as well as any changes in the sharpness of detail. Other than final, default sharpening of Topaz InFocus applied uniformly to all 4 images, there is no editing except downsampling to JPEG presentation size; I even left in the sensor dust bunny at the top. The Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco was convenient, well lit target, and has lots of parallel straight lines for this test.

Open both images and tab them back and forth. Notice how the edges of the frame come forward and the center of the frame gets further away? This has the overall illusion of making the subject seem a bit smaller (distant). It looks as if there is some vignetting compensation too, but there is no way for the program to know what f stop is being used. I studied this at 100% looking for some obvious decrease in sharpness, and decided if any, it was pretty minimal. Some pixels may be added where the image has to expand a bit at the edges, but it seems as though most of the distortion correction is in taking out extra pixels in the center. The fine detail subjectively has the comparable resolution in both images.

Next we compare the a similar style mustache distortion correction by PT Lens on the output of the Zeiss Distagon 21 f2.8. Shot at f 5.6 (optimum sharpness for this lens) WITHOUT PT lens.

the distortion is not as accentuated in the center of the frame, but the action carries more towards the edges (see the dust bunny move). My assessment of 100% pixel peeping was that there was no change in image sharpness.

Finally compare the Rokinon Vs the Zeiss: image 1 Vs 3 and image 2 Vs 4. Obviously the 14mm image has a wider fov and smaller details than the 21mm image, don't expect them to be identical. Downsampling of the Zeiss shot could be done with cropping of the Rokinon, but thats another software action affecting IQ. Suffice it to say that the Rokinon does pretty well in comparison, as it is less than $400 at Amazon and the Zeiss more than $1800.

I am in no way affiliated with PT Lens, but its a reasonable $25 program.
Mike K

JimUe wrote:
the ugly distortion plays a huge role in landscape work if your landscape work involves lines like horizons. easy to fix with a lens correction profile though.

There are two distortions in your cityscape, the predominant one being perspective distortion (the vertical lines of buildings leaning inward). This can be addressed before the shot by using shift in a Tilt-Shift lens or post with PS or other image editing programs. This perspective distortion could be seen in any UWA lens, as you are tilting the camera backwards to capture the scene.

The mustache distortion inherent in the Samyang 14 is discussed in my post above, with examples of distortion correction using PT Lens.
Mike K

Mike K wrote:
There are two distortions in your cityscape, the predominant one being perspective distortion (the vertical lines of buildings leaning inward). This can be addressed before the shot by using shift in a Tilt-Shift lens or post with PS or other image editing programs. This perspective distortion could be seen in any UWA lens, as you are tilting the camera backwards to capture the scene.

The mustache distortion inherent in the Samyang 14 is discussed in my post above, with examples of distortion correction using PT Lens.
Mike K

Sorry, I misquoted your distortion correction. Your example shows that the perspective distortion can be quite strong in an UWA lens such as the Samyang 14. In PS CS5 its under Filter, Lens Correction, Custom Tab, Transform, Vertical or Horizontal perspective.

JimUe
Thank you for your opening entry. Good star shot, one of the applications I am considering with such a fast ultrawide. Here, f2.8 makes the difference to f 4.5 of the otherwise certainly interesting Sigma 12-24.

Mike K
Thanks for the showing the role of using lens profiles, a topic already mentioned in JimUe contribution.

wfrank
You have some shots of impressing clarity that really show the capabilities of this lens. I like the sail ship in the harbor. Makes me really want that lens.

I found that there is a slight misalignment as the right side has more distortion than the left. Do other owners see similar misalignments as well? If no, I will return this one (I'm still within the 30 day period)

markhout -- Mine seems fine on "distortion" -- vignetting and edge softness are equal on all sides. This is my second lens, as I returned the first for inaccurate focus scale. This second one is the same -- had to do my own marked distanse settings.

If you are unsatisfied, I recommend returning and exchanging the lens. It won't be as easy to fix after that return period ends.

Thanks for kind words. It is a great lens with some known deficiencies. As any other lens. But the performance is there to be harvested for anyone interested in it.

Focus scale is way off on mine too. I never bothered, even bought a Nikon version to a Canon 5D2 just to be able to use an adapter with AF-confirm chip. Nikon means distance scale is in the wrong direction too. Also, far corners can be bothersome.

The last two shots I posted was taken on a ride up upon a large dome-shaped hockey arena here. At the top I did entertain myself with a few handheld HDR's as I usually like them in BW. Here's one.

Nice shots dbehrens. As you obviously know how to do pleasing image it would be interesting to hear your opinion about far corners.

If you take a look at my shot in post #14, you'll see significant degradation in the lower right corner. I see similar in yours (lower left #1, and some in both lower left and right in the last. But I dont think degradation is as harsh as mine. I dont think it's a bad sample, and sometimes it looks more pleasing (and my copy is supersharp 80% of the screen). Any thoughts?

wfrank - I had been shooting at f:8 and found significant degradation on the entire right side, with the lower corner being the worst.

On further investigation - stopping down further to f:13 brought significant relief - that's why I think my lens was slightly misaligned (post #12). From other internet postings I believe that this is a common error in these lenses and I did not bother to return the lens.

wfrank wrote:
Nice shots dbehrens. As you obviously know how to do pleasing image it would be interesting to hear your opinion about far corners.

If you take a look at my shot in post #14, you'll see significant degradation in the lower right corner. I see similar in yours (lower left #1, and some in both lower left and right in the last. But I dont think degradation is as harsh as mine. I dont think it's a bad sample, and sometimes it looks more pleasing (and my copy is supersharp 80% of the screen). Any thoughts?

Thanks. Normally I am very pleased with my corners on a FF but in that last pic my lower left is not crisp. I'm guessing (due to low light in the canyon) that this was shot more wide open and closer to infinity focus than what I normally like to shoot. I'm guessing this was probably set on about 7ft focus and f/4-5.6.

Normally I like to set my focus on about 3 feet and from about f/11 onwards I have a very crisp foreground with acceptable infinity. The example below is with a 1Ds Mk2 with focus set at 3ft and f/16.